Vatican Excommunicates Gay-Supportive Australian Priest
Source: advocate
In the wake of encouraging statements Pope Francis made in an interview published last week comes evidence that the Roman Catholic Church still definitely does not embrace LGBT equality — the excommunication of a gay-supportive priest in Melbourne, Australia.
Father Greg Reynolds, who supports marriage equality and the ordination of women as Catholic clergy, received the letter last week via a church lawyer, reports Australian newspaper The Age. It was dated May 31 and written in Latin, so canon lawyer John Salvano, who had called Reynolds in to discuss it, translated it for him.
The document gave no reason for the excommunication, but Reynolds told the newspaper, “I’ve come to this position because I’ve followed my conscience on women’s ordination and gay marriage.”
Reynolds, who has founded a group called Inclusive Catholics, says he will continue his ministry with that organization.
Read more: http://www.advocate.com/politics/religion/2013/09/24/vatican-excommunicates-gay-supportive-australian-priest
father greg reynolds
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Matilda
(6,384 posts)I hoped for better from Francis.
Interesting that none of the Australian MSM has run with this.
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)supported women's ordination or LGBT issues.
The priest's advocacy goes a beyond a statement of support for female ordination. Reynolds is the founder of Inclusive Catholics, which advocates for women's ordination and for a reform of the church's teaching on homosexuality. He resigned from his parish ministry to lead the group (but not from the priesthood), providing a further reason for the church to seek him out for censure. In 2012, Reynolds received a letter of warning from Denis Hart, the Archbishop of Melbourne, for acting publicly as a priest without authorization
, and for giving "alternate" forms of the Eucharist at Inclusive Catholics's monthly meetings.
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/global/2013/09/pope-francis-excommunicated-priest-who-supports-womens-ordination/69827/
marshall
(6,665 posts)But it does make for an eye catching, albeit one sided, headline.
Hulk
(6,699 posts)Just when I think the Catholic Church has a redeeming feature, I read something like this. Back into the shit hole they go. I hope to learn more about this...like maybe there is more to the story? Maybe it's not true? I sure hope it's not true.
Matilda
(6,384 posts)Reputable publication (i.e. not Murdoch). Looks as though it's true.
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/church-dumps-rebel-priest-20130920-2u5jp.html
TreasonousBastard
(43,049 posts)excommunication wasn't expected. Just a defrocking.
Vatican politics is notoriously obscure, so who knows who was out for this guy's blood, but kneejerk blame on the Pope is probably unwarranted.
dipsydoodle
(42,239 posts)there seems to have been other issues which may have been of higher importance with the gay aspect just being a red herring. Wouldn't have thought it would take light years to translate the Latin into English for the actual reasons.
JI7
(89,247 posts)dipsydoodle
(42,239 posts).
Alamuti Lotus
(3,093 posts)Matilda
(6,384 posts)these things take a lot of time, and I expect it was begun under Benedict.
But a shame that Francis's name will appear as the pope who carried it out.
the same Vatican that overlooked priests molesting boys? 
icymist
(15,888 posts)Words. Just has better words. Hate = Hate.
Shivering Jemmy
(900 posts)That the pope is the boss? He's one of several bosses. Probably the one with the most theoretical power. But his power base in the Vatican is tenuous and other bishops might have more influence at the moment.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)other such nonsense. If none of that is true then Francis should say so lest he be not only a raging bigot but also a blatant liar engaging the public in great fraud. If the office itself is a bit of fakery, to hold that office is to be a conman filling one's own needs while claiming it is about 'God'. Pretty vacant.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)of the most bigoted anti gay organization on Earth and he has done not one thing to mitigate that unhinged bigotry. 'Best Pope Ever' shout a bunch of straight people. I assume those who endorse Francis also endorse this sort of bigotry. It would be dangerous to assume otherwise.
theHandpuppet
(19,964 posts)A reality check was in order here.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)the saps keep falling for it.
Alamuti Lotus
(3,093 posts)Yeah... not with me either.
Arugula Latte
(50,566 posts)The anti-gay and anti-women policies remain entrenched in that vile institution.
NYC Liberal
(20,135 posts)war, poverty, etc are exactly the same as all the others have been.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)
hedgehog
(36,286 posts)
Hydra
(14,459 posts)The Pope could be just trying for a more positive image with his comments about LBGT stuff and Globalization, or he could be rocking the boat and will have to fight the establish power structure to move away from stuff like this.
That said, this is an organic process. If they kick out all of the equality friendly voices from the church(that includes people like me), then they're just going to be an empty shell full of hateful/fearful people that no one will view as a positive influence in the world.
The choice is theirs- money/power/evil or what their messiah stands for.
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts).
closeupready
(29,503 posts)
Blandocyte
(1,231 posts)Canon law is the law despite any warm fuzzy crap that any pope, priest or nun might spout. Church don't care cuz the warm fuzzy stuff draws in more paying members. Church cares, though, when the warm fuzzy stuff starts getting mistaken for what the Church actually is made out of in terms of canon law.
The webpage that has the full version of canon law should scare anyone. It's huge.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)The letter, a copy of which NCR obtained and translated, accuses Reynolds of heresy (Canon 751) and determined he incurred latae sententiae excommunication for throwing away the consecrated host or retaining it "for a sacrilegious purpose" (Canon 1367). It also referenced Canon 1369 (speaking publicly against church teaching) in its review of the case.
"The decision by Pope Francis to dismiss Fr Reynolds from the clerical state and to declare his automatic excommunication has been made because of his public teaching on the ordination of women contrary to the teaching of the Church and his public celebration of the Eucharist when he did not hold faculties to act publicly as a priest," Hart wrote.
His web site which contains the latest two letters from his Bishop:
http://www.inclusive-catholics.com/LatePost.htm
What is "An alternative forms of Eucharist"? That is what his bishop wrote about this action. Something is wrong and I suspect it is more then his support for Homosexual OR his support for ordination of women. He did something with the Eucharist that upset the Vatican, what I have no idea.
The comments to the article hint that he may have given Eucharist to a dog. That is supported by another cite that also points out this Priest was under a rule from his bishop NOT to hold masses, but he did:
http://protectthepope.com/?p=8379
If he gave communion to a dog that could be forgive UNLESS it was did in a way that mocked the concept behind the Eucharist (that it is the body and blood of Jesus Christ). Thus that was a minor offense at best.
That he is still holding masses when he was told by his bishop NOT to, seems to be a bigger issue. Priests are to obey their superiors, i.e. their Bishops. Failure to do so it to make mockery of that Superior. No organization is going to tolerate that, be in the Catholic Church, the Army or even a private employer. That seems to be the reason for the excommunication NOT his support for gays OR for the ordination of women. This priest continued to hold masses after he was told to stop. I suspect that was the real issue, the dog incident could be explained as something unexpected and the Priest decided the best way to handle it was to ignore it. Thus the dog issue was at best an additional but minor factor. I suspect the real problem was the failure to follow his bishop.
Side note: This excommunication is weird. The bishop did NOT ask for it. Someone else filed a complaint with the Vatican with enough facts for the Vatican to ask the Bishop for the paperwork on this Priest and from that paperwork the excommunication took place. What was in the file? Everything is speculation, but I suspect it had to do with this Priests failure to obey his bishop on the issue of holding masses.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Shows you the priorities.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)In the pedophile cases, no one ever claimed what those Priest did was right. Some said they did NOT do it, but no one said they had a RIGHT to do it.
On the other hand those same priest were "laicized" i.e. removed from the priesthood. They can no longer hold mass or preform any other priestly duty.
In this case, it appears that this Priest continued to hold masses for his followers after he was told NOT to do so. He advocated positions in those masses that the Church told him NOT to say in public (i.e. you can say you support women ordination to the Bishop, to other people within the church and to the Pope but to the public at large you are to follow what those above him in the hierarchy has decided would be the public position of the Catholic Church). HE could say he personally has no objection to women priests, he could even permit people who have that position say so in his presence (but NOT in Church) as long as he makes it clear that what is being said is NOT the position of the Church.
The problem appears to be, this priest went one more step, he advocated that position from his pulpit and other places where it would appear to be his position as a Catholic Priest (as oppose to as an individual). I keep remembering the Vietnam era Officer who wore his uniform to an anti-war rally. He was court martial for doing so. The army would have have done anything had he worn civilian clothes to the rally, but since he worn his uniform he gave the impression that the ARMY oppose the war. That is a clear violation of the concept that going to war is a political decision left to politician. That young officer was in effect giving the appearance of advocating that the US Army disobey lawful orders from the Army's Civilian superiors. That position was not tolerable, the Military comes under Civilian Control and thus must follow and appear to support whatever the Civilian leadership decides. Even the appearance of disobeying that command structure could not be permitted so the officer was court martialed.
The same rationale for this Priest, he has to at least give appearance of supporting his superiors AND whenever he appears as a priest support the decisions of his superiors. He may disagree with them, he can say he does, but he has to make clear that he also will obey their decisions. Furthermore he has to be careful to make sure any objections to Church Teachings that he has, are his alone not of the Church alone.
It was his failure to make it clear that his position was NOT the position of the Catholic Church that lead to his excommunication. Excommunication clearly shows he is no longer speaking for the Catholic Church and that is the sole purpose of Excommunication. In the pedophile cases excommunication was not needed for those priests were NOT advocating what they did was right for them to do under Church Doctrine. They could deny they did them, but once it was clear they had (and this should have occurred while before it did) they should have been removed from the priesthood (and in most cases were removed after the evidence was clear). This is a different type of case then the pedophile cases for here the Priest is claiming what he did was RIGHT and he kept on saying so. That is why he was excommunicated.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)truly shows the Church's priorities when one is latae sententiae for abortion, but not for the violation of children.
To claim that the sole purpose of excommunication is to show that he is not speaking for the Catholic church is a ludicrous claim that has no foundation in canon law.
uriel1972
(4,261 posts)Guess they had to make room for not ordaining women and forcing them to bear children they don't want. Oh and I guess they found room for hating gender minorities as well.
Matilda
(6,384 posts)there is an article in National Catholic Reporter, and from the correspondence below the article, it seems there may be more to this story than appears at first.
http://ncronline.org/news/global/australian-priest-advocate-womens-ordination-excommunicated